Krista Jansson. Home Office Online Report 25/06

Transcription

1 Black and Minority Ethnic groups experiences and perceptions of crime, racially motivated crime and the police: findings from the 2004/05 British Crime Survey Krista Jansson Home Office Online Report 25/06 The views expressed in this report are those of the authors, not necessarily those of the Home Office (nor do they reflect Government policy).

3 Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Jonathan Allen, Ian Brunton-Smith, Alison Patterson and Tony Ellis for their help in the analysis and preparation of this report. The author would also like to thank colleagues in the RDS and Home Office for their invaluable comments and advice, in particular John Flatley, Alison Walker, Sara Trikha and Jon Simmons. Many thanks to the team at BMRB Social Research responsible for the running of, and interviewing for, the British Crime Survey. Finally, thank you to the members of the public who participated in the interviews. i

5 List of tables and figures List of Tables 1.1 Numbers of respondents and households by ethnicity Percentage of victims who were victimised more than once in reference year Victimisation rates per 10,000 adults Victimisation rates per 10,000 households Estimated numbers of racially motivated crimes Reporting rates of household and personal crimes by ethnicity 29 List of figures 1.1 Age distribution of ethnic groups, BCS 2004/ Household characteristics, BCS 2004/ Risk of personal crimes by ethnicity, BCS 2004/ Risk of household offences by ethnicity, BCS 2004/ Offender ethnicity in all BCS crimes, BCS 2004/ Proportions of crime perceived as racially motivated, 2003/04 and 2004/05 BCS Reasons why crimes were perceived as racially motivated, BCS 2004/ Offender characteristics in racially motivated crimes, BCS 2004/ Ratings of the local police by type of contact, BCS 2004/ Proportion of adults who were stopped by the police, BCS 2004/ Emotional reactions to being stopped by the police, BCS 2004/05 28 iii

6 Executive summary Introduction The report presents findings from the 2004/05 British Crime Survey (BCS). The focus of the report is to examine Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) groups experiences of crime and racially motivated crimes and to compare these with the White population. The report examines levels of victimisation, including racially motivated crimes, and the nature of racially motivated crimes. Information about the respondents attitudes towards and contact with the police are also included in this report. This report updates previous findings from the BCS 2000 (Clancy et al., 2001), and BCS 2001/02 and 2002/03 (Salisbury and Upson, 2004). The figures here are based on the BCS interviews carried out in 2004/05. The BCS is a large, nationally representative, victimisation survey of approximately 45,000 adults living in private households. The figures in this report also include an additional ethnic boost sample of 3,703 respondents from BME groups. The ethnic groups classifications adopted in this report are based on the 2001 Census classifications; White, Mixed, Asian or Asian British, Black or Black British and Chinese or Other ethnic groups. These Census classifications were adopted for the 2001/02 BCS. Comparisons between the groups that make up these categories (e.g. Asian-Indian and Asian-Bangladeshi) are also provided where possible. Extent and trends in victimisation The 2004/05 BCS showed that there were no differences in the overall prevalence risk of victimisation (total BCS crimes) between ethnic groups, with the exception of people from a Mixed ethnic group (29%) being at higher risk of victimisation than White people (24%). People from a Mixed (11%) ethnic group were also at higher risk of becoming a victim of a personal crime than people from Asian (6%) and White (6%) ethnic groups. In terms of overall violent incidents people from a Mixed (7%) ethnic group were at higher risk of victimisation than people from all other ethnic groups (White 4%, Asian 3%, Black 4% and Chinese and Other 4%). Households with a Household Reference Person (HRP) from Asian (21%) or Mixed (23%) ethnic backgrounds were most likely to have been victims of household crimes overall compared with the other ethnic groups (White 18%, Black 17% and Chinese and Other 17%). Differences were also noted in the risk of victimisation in terms of specific household offences (vehicle-related theft, vandalism and burglary). Overall, the Mixed ethnic group were generally at higher risk of victimisation, appearing to be the most at risk group. These findings are consistent with previous research (Salisbury and Upson, 2004). The multivariate analyses carried out indicated that the differences between Mixed and other ethnic groups reflect differences in the socio-demographic profiles of the groups rather than ethnicity itself. In particular the proportion of young people in the Mixed ethnic group is large in comparison to other ethnic groups, and young people are in particular at higher risk of victimisation (Nicholas et al., 2005). Multivariate analyses indicated that ethnicity was not independently associated with risk of victimisation for either all personal or violent incidents. Nor was it independently associated with risk of victimisation for household crimes, with the exception of burglary where Asian and Mixed ethnic groups were at higher risk of iv

7 victimisation. Other predictors of burglary were age and sex, living in an area with high levels of perceived anti-social behaviour and having no security measures. The strongest predictor of risk of burglary was having no security measures. The decrease in the overall risk of victimisation (all BCS crimes) between BCS interviews in 2003/04 and 2004/05 was statistically significant for White (from 26% to 24%), Mixed (39% to 29%) and Asian (31% to 26%) ethnic groups. There was no change in the risk of victimisation among Black and Chinese and Other ethnic groups. Racially motivated crimes It was estimated that there were 179,000 racially motivated crimes in England and Wales, based on BCS interviews in 2004/05. The number of racially motivated crimes was estimated at around 206,000 based on both the 2003/04 and the 2002/03 BCS. The risk of becoming a victim of a racially motivated crime was low across the groups: two per cent of people from the BME groups, and one per cent of people from White and Chinese and other ethnic groups, had been a victim of a racially motivated crime in the last 12 months. The risk was lower among White groups compared with all other ethnic groups but the risk did not vary between the BME groups. A larger proportion of respondents from BME groups perceived incidents as having been racially motivated compared with White respondents. Eleven per cent of total BCS crimes where the victim was from a BME group were thought to be racially motivated, whereas the comparable figure was one per cent for BCS crimes where the victim was from a White ethnic group. The most common reasons mentioned for why incidents had been perceived as racially motivated were that racist language had been used during the incident, because of the offender s/victim s race or country of origin, and because the incident had happened before. People from BME backgrounds were most likely to think that the crime had been racially motivated due to the victim s race/country of origin (53%), and White people because racist language had been used during the incident (35%). The nature of racially motivated crimes was also examined. For example, the offender was a stranger in the majority of incidents thought to be racially motivated, and the offender or offenders were thought to be under the influence of alcohol in just under four out of ten incidents. Contact with and perceptions of the police People from all BME groups had higher levels of confidence in the police compared with the White group, with the exception of respondents from the Mixed ethnic group. Forty-eight per cent of White respondents thought that the police in their local area, and in general, were doing an excellent job. The comparable figures for the BME groups were 50 and 45 per cent (Mixed), 53 and 52 per cent (Asian), 56 and 52 per cent (Black), and 60 and 56 per cent (Chinese and Other) ethnic groups. Respondents from both BME and White groups were more likely to have higher levels of confidence if they had not been victims of crime or had had no contact with the police in the 12 months prior to their interview. This, and the multivariate analyses carried out, indicate that levels of confidence in the police are mainly associated with factors other than ethnicity, such as confidence in the criminal justice system (CJS) and perceiving a low-level of anti-social behaviour in the local area. Respondents from a Mixed ethnic group were more likely to have had some form of contact with the police in the previous year (48%) compared with all other ethnic v

8 groups: White (40%), Asian (35%), Black (37%) and Chinese and Other (29%) ethnic groups. This again is likely to reflect the young age profile of the group; young people overall are more likely to have contact with the police compared with other age groups. Similar proportions of respondents from White and BME groups (all BME groups combined) who had contacted the police, or had police-initiated contact, said they had been satisfied with the way the police dealt with the matter (66% and 64%, and 82% and 80% respectively). People from Mixed (16%), Asian (13%) and Black (15%) ethnic groups were more likely to have been stopped in a vehicle by the police compared with people from White (9%) and Chinese and Other (6%) ethnic groups. There were no differences in the likelihood of being stopped on foot between the groups. Of those who had been stopped, respondents from BME groups were more likely to be searched. In general, people from Chinese and Other ethnic groups were more likely to report crimes to the police than people from other ethnic groups. The most common reason among all groups for not reporting crimes was that the incident was too trivial to report or that the police could do very little about it, followed by that the incident was thought to be a private matter and/or dealt with privately. A lower proportion of Asian respondents (47%) who had been victims of crime said they had been satisfied with the way the police dealt with the case compared with White (58%), Mixed (63%) and Chinese and Other (61%) respondents who had been victims of crimes. The victim satisfaction figure was 53 per cent among the Black ethnic group. The levels of witness satisfaction were similar between respondents from BME and White groups. vi

9 1 Introduction This report presents findings from the 2004/05 British Crime Survey (BCS) focusing on Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) groups experiences of crime and racially motivated crimes in comparison with the White population. The report examines levels of victimisation, including racially motivated crimes, and the nature of racially motivated crimes. The BCS is also used to examine perceptions of the criminal justice system (CJS) and the police in particular, and the attitudes towards, and contact with, the police of different ethnic groups are also included in this report. Detailed results from the 2004/05 BCS in relation to public confidence and perceptions of the CJS and the police are included in a separate Home Office report by Allen et al. (2006a) and worry about crime, including analysis by ethnicity, can also be found elsewhere (Allen et al., 2006b). The figures presented are based on BCS interviews carried out in 2004/05. The BCS is a large, nationally representative, victimisation survey of approximately 45,000 adults (aged 16 years or over) living in private households in England and Wales. In the 2004/05 BCS there was an additional boost sample of 3,703 respondents from BME groups to allow more detailed analysis by ethnicity (see Appendix B for more information about the British Crime Survey). Black and Minority Ethnic groups According to the 2001 Census there were 4.5 million non-white people in England and Wales, making up nearly nine per cent of the population. Examining differences in victimisation, and experiences and confidence in the CJS and the police among these groups is important, in particular since the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report (Macpherson, 1999). The Home Office also publishes annual reports under Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which include statistics on BME experiences, such as their representation at various stages of the CJS. The first analysis of the relationship between ethnicity and victimisation using the BCS was reported by Mayhew et al. (1989). Since then the BCS has included a boost sample of BME groups to allow more robust analysis of the differences between these groups and with the White population. The boost sample is obtained using focused enumeration. This involves sampling adjacent addresses to those selected to take part in the core survey for people from BME groups (see Grant et al., 2006 for more information). This report updates previous findings from the 2000 BCS (Clancy et al., 2001), and the 2001/02 BCS and the 2002/03 BCS (Salisbury and Upson, 2004). The ethnic group classification adopted in this report is based on the one used for the 2001 Census: White, Mixed, Asian or Asian British, Black or Black British and Chinese or Other ethnic groups. The 2001 Census classification was adopted for the 2001/02 BCS. The results are therefore not directly comparable to earlier BCS rounds, for example they did not identify a Mixed ethnic group. Due to small sample sizes it was necessary to collapse some of the subgroups. It should be noted that these broader categories can mask differences between particular subgroups, for example in terms of average income, housing and educational levels. Where sample sizes allowed, differences between the subgroups were examined and are summarised within the report. 1

10 The BCS asks respondents to classify their ethnic background, as well as other household members ethnicity. The interviewers present a show card with the options listed below to each respondent, asking: To which of these ethnic groups do you consider you/ other household member belong(s)? A. White British B. White Irish C. White Other White Background D. Mixed White and Black Caribbean E. Mixed White and Black African F. Mixed White and Asian G. Mixed Any Other Mixed Background H. Asian or Asian British Indian I. Asian or Asian British Pakistani J. Asian or Asian British Bangladeshi K. Asian or Asian British Other Asian Background L. Black or Black British Caribbean M. Black or Black British African N. Black or Black British Other Black Background O. Chinese P. Other The groups are then collapsed into the broader Census 2001 categories (see above). The BCS interviews only one adult in each household. In households with more than one adult the respondent is selected randomly. Figures for personal crimes such as violent incidents are based on the ethnic background of the respondent. Figures for household offences such as burglary are based on the ethnic background of the Household Reference Person (HRP) 1. Sample profiles The numbers of respondents in each ethnic group are shown below: Table 1.1 Numbers of respondents and households by ethnicity BCS 2004/05 Respondent ethnicity Ethnicity of the Household Reference Person White 42,359 42,346 Mixed ethnic group Asian or Asian British 2,891 2,824 Black or Black British 1,994 1,925 Chinese and Other ethnic 1, groups It should be noted that the survey estimates for the groups with small sample sizes, such as Mixed ethnic and Chinese and Other ethnic groups are more likely to fluctuate than the other groups. Larger differences in estimates are also required to detect statistically significant differences or changes between such groups, or over time. 2 Information on the socio-demographic characteristics of the groups are presented in Figures 1.1 and 1.2, and Appendix Tables 1.01 and As the 2001 Census has shown there are 1 See Appendix D; Methodological Note. 2 See Appendix D: Methodological Note for information on statistical significance. 2

11 some clear differences in the socio-demographic characteristics of the BME and White groups. In line with this, the BCS shows that BME groups tend to have a younger age profile, especially the Mixed ethnic group, and have higher rates of economic inactivity in comparison with their White counterparts. Furthermore, households with an HRP from a BME group tend to have lower incomes, be more likely to live in the social rented sector and in urban areas, as well as to live in areas with high levels of perceived anti-social behaviour. Vehicle ownership levels are also lower among some of the groups. Findings from the 2004/05 BCS showed that certain groups are at higher risk of victimisation than others (Nicholas et al., 2005). For example, households with no home security are at higher risk of burglary, households living in inner-city areas are at higher risk of vehiclerelated theft, and young men are at higher risk of violent incidents. Furthermore, many of these characteristics are interlinked; for example young people are more likely to be single and visit pubs frequently than older people, all of which are linked to a higher risk of victimisation. Therefore differences in experiences of crime between the BME groups and the White population may reflect differences in the socio-demographic profile of these groups. For that reason multivariate analyses were carried out to examine the extent to which possible differences between groups reflect ethnicity and/or other factors, and are included in this report. 3 However, due to the importance of monitoring the experiences of BME groups, establishing levels of victimisation and racially motivated incidents is important but it must be recognised that there are several complex factors which may explain differences between the groups. Figure 1.1 Age distribution of ethnic groups, BCS 2004/05 White Mixed Asian Black Chinese and Other BME total % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Logistic regression- see Appendix C for more information. 3

12 Figure 1.2 Household characteristics, BCS 2004/ White Mixed Asian Black Chinese and other % of households Household income less than 5,000 5,000-10,000 10,000-20,000 20,000-30,000 30,000 or more Owners Social rented sector Private rented sector The structure of the report Chapter 2 of the report examines levels and trends in victimisation and differences between ethnic groups. The chapter also includes information on repeat victimisation and offender ethnicity. Chapter 3 focuses on incidents perceived as racially motivated. The chapter includes information on the numbers and risk of victimisation of racially motivated crimes. The nature and circumstances surrounding racially motivated crimes are also examined. Chapter 4 examines contact with and perceptions of the police. This includes assessing the extent and type of contact that people from different ethnic groups have had with the police, including whether crimes had been reported to the police and the extent to which people had been stopped by the police. The chapter also includes information about different ethnic groups ratings of the police. Summaries are provided at the end of each chapter. 4

13 2 Extent and trends in victimisation This chapter examines the extent and trends in victimisation of Black and Minority Ethnic groups, and how these differ between the groups and in comparison with the White population. In addition, information relating to repeat victimisation and offender ethnicity is included. Extent of victimisation The number of crimes in England and Wales has fallen since a peak in the mid-1990s. The 2004/05 BCS estimated that there were approximately 10.8 million crimes in England and Wales (Nicholas et al., 2005). The overall risk of victimisation was 24 per cent, indicating that just below one in four people had experienced a crime in the previous 12 months. Estimates of the numbers of incidents against people and households from different BME groups and White people are presented in Appendix Table Based on BCS interviews, in 2004/05 there were just over 3.6 million personal crimes against White people. However, comparing absolute numbers of crimes against the Black and Ethnic Minority groups with those against White groups is limited because such differences largely reflect differences in the absolute numbers in the general population of England and Wales. Therefore this report focuses on the risks of victimisation and numbers of incidents per 10,000 population, as these allow examination of the relative risks of victimisation for the groups. Risk of becoming a victim of crime The overall risk of victimisation, i.e. the percentage of people or households that had been victims of crime once or more in the 12 months prior to their interview, was relatively even across the different ethnic groups (Appendix A, Table 2.02). 4 The 2004/05 BCS showed that there were no differences in the overall prevalence risk of victimisation between the groups, with the exception of people from Mixed ethnic groups being at higher risk of victimisation than White people. The overall risk of victimisation amongst people from Mixed ethnic groups was 29 per cent compared with 24 per cent for White people. The overall risk of victimisation was 23 per cent for people from Chinese and Other ethnic groups, 24 per cent for Black or Black British and 26 per cent for Asian and Asian British. The apparent differences between people from Mixed and other BME groups were not statistically significant. Overall, the Mixed ethnic group were generally at higher risk of victimisation, appearing to be the most at risk group. These findings are consistent with previous research (Salisbury and Upson, 2004). The multivariate analyses carried out indicated that the differences between Mixed and other ethnic groups reflect differences in the socio-demographic profiles of the groups rather than ethnicity itself. In particular the proportion of young people in the Mixed ethnic group is large in comparison to other ethnic groups, and young people are in particular at higher risk of victimisation (Nicholas et al., 2005). 4 The rate is calculated treating a household crime as a personal crime. It is the estimate percentage of adults who have been a victim of at least one personal crime or have been a resident in a household that was a victim of at least one household crime. 5

14 Personal crimes Overall personal crimes, 5 and in particular violent crimes, are relatively rare. Based on 2004/05 BCS interviews 6.5 per cent of the population had been victims of any personal crime, and less than four per cent victims of violent crimes. The risks differed somewhat between the groups (Appendix Table 2.02). People from Mixed ethnic groups appeared to be at higher risk of victimisation than many of the other ethnic groups. Eleven per cent of people from Mixed ethnic backgrounds had been victims of personal crimes, a higher proportion than people from White (6%) or Asian (6%) backgrounds. In terms of overall violent incidents people from Mixed ethnic groups were again at higher risk of victimisation (7%) than people from White (4%), Asian (3%), Black (4%) and Chinese and Other (4%) ethnic groups. Figure 2.1 Risk of personal crimes by ethnicity, BCS 2004/05 20 White 18 Mixed 16 Asian Black 14 Chinese or other % victims once or more Common assault (includes some with minor injuries) Wounding Robbery Any BCS violence All personal crime With regards to the BCS violence typology, some differences in the risk of victimisation were observed between the White and BME groups (Appendix A, Table 2.02). 6 The difference in the risk of victimisation between people from Mixed and other ethnic groups was mainly observed in terms of the risk of becoming a victim of acquaintance violence; three per cent of people from Mixed ethnic groups had been victims of acquaintance violence, a higher proportion than people from Black (1%) and Asian (1%) ethnic groups. White people were at lower risk of becoming victims of muggings (1%) than people from Black (1%) and Chinese and Other ethnic backgrounds (2%). However, some of the differences in the risk of personal victimisation are likely to be the result of differences in the socio-demographic profiles of the BME and White groups. As described in Chapter 1, for example, the proportion of young males is considerably larger in the Mixed 5 Personal crimes include violent crimes (assaults and robbery), thefts from the person and other personal crimes. 6 Some of the differences are statistically significant although the figures reported here do not differ due to rounding. 6

15 ethnic group, and young men overall are at higher risk of violence than other groups (Nicholas et al., 2005). Multivariate analysis 7 identified that for BCS violence and personal crime overall, ethnicity was not independently associated with victimisation when other factors were taken into account. Instead, the risk of becoming a victim of a violent crime as well as overall personal crime was associated with: being a young male, in particular between 16 and 24 years old; living in an area with high levels of perceived anti-social behaviour; 8 visiting pubs, in particular three times a week or more often; marital status, in particular being separated or divorced. Household crime Based on the 2004/05 BCS, there were some differences in the risk of victimisation when looking at household crimes (Figure 2.2 and Appendix Table 2.02). It should be noted that for household offences, such as burglary, the respondent answers on behalf of the whole household. 9 In terms of the overall risk of becoming a victim of a household crime, households where the Household Reference Person was from an Asian (21%) or a Mixed (23%) ethnic group were at higher risk of victimisation than households with White (18%), Black (17%), or Chinese and Other ethnic (17%) background HRPs (the difference between households with HRPs from Mixed and White ethnic groups was not, however, statistically significant). This pattern was to an extent consistent across the household crime types, with the exception of risk of burglary which was broadly similar across the groups. Households with an HRP from Mixed (17%) or Black ethnic (15%) backgrounds had a higher risk of becoming a victim of a vehicle-related theft than households with any other ethnic background HRP. In addition, households with an HRP from the Asian ethnic group (10%) were at higher risk of victimisation than households with a White HRP (8%). Households with an HRP from Mixed (8%) and Asian (8%) groups were also at higher risk of vandalism than households with an HRP with a Black ethnic background (4%). The differences between households with a Black, compared with White (7%) and Chinese and Other ethnic backgrounds (5%) were also significant. 7 See Appendix C for information on multivariate analyses. 8 Based on the respondents perceptions of levels of anti-social behaviour. 9 Household offences include bicycle theft, burglary, theft in a dwelling, other household theft, thefts of and from vehicles and vandalism to household property and vehicles. 7

16 Figure 2.2 Risk of household offences by ethnicity, BCS 2004/05 25 White Mixed Percentage victims once or more Asian Black Chinese or other Vandalism Burglary All vehicle thefts All household crime Note: risk of vehicle theft is based on vehicle-owning households However, as for the risk of personal crime, for most types of household crimes ethnicity was not independently associated with victimisation when other factors were taken into account. The only exception to this was burglary. For burglary, ethnic group was independently associated with risk of victimisation. Overall the following characteristics were found to be associated with the risk of burglary. Having no home security measures. Living in an area with high levels of perceived anti-social behaviour Age and sex: households with a young male HRP (between 16 and 24 years of age) were at the highest risk. Ethnicity: households with an HRP from Asian or Mixed ethnic groups in particular. Ethnic group was not independently associated with the risk of becoming a victim of vehiclerelated thefts, vehicle vandalism or vandalism to the home. Instead, the following characteristics were found to be independently associated with the risk of victimisation (for all three crime types): age, in particular an HRP being between 16 and 34 years of age; living in an area with high levels of perceived anti-social behaviour. 8

17 Differences in the risk of victimisation between subgroups that make up each of the categories were also examined where possible. Analyses were carried out to examine differences in the risk of victimisation between Black-African and Black-Caribbean groups, and between Asian-Bangladeshi, Asian-Pakistani and Asian-Indian groups, for vandalism, burglary, vehicle-related thefts, all household crime, all personal, all violence and all BCS crimes. There were no differences between Black-African and Black-Caribbean groups for any of the crime types. There were no differences between the Asian groups in terms of risk of violence or all personal crimes. There were no differences between the groups for the risk of vehicle-related thefts either. Asian-Pakistanis were at higher risk of total BCS crimes than Asian-Bangladeshis and Asian-Indians. Asian-Pakistanis were also at higher risk of all BCS crime compared with the White group. Asian-Pakistanis were also at higher risk of all household crimes than Asian- Bangladeshis and Asian-Indians. Asian-Bangladeshis were at lower risk of all household offences than Asian-Indians. Again the difference between Asian- Pakistanis and the White group was significant, with Asian-Pakistanis at higher risk of victimisation. The risk of vandalism and burglary was also higher among Asian-Pakistanis than Asian- Bangladeshis (and than the White group). Note: It was not possible to carry out the analysis for all subgroups due to small sample sizes. Repeat victimisation Risk of victimisation, i.e. prevalence rates, indicate the proportion of people or households that have been victims of crime once or more in the 12 month period prior to their interview. However, they do not take into account repeat victimisation (people/households who had been victims of that particular type of offence more than once). It should be noted that the BCS only collects information on repeat victimisation during the 12 month period prior to the interview, so it excludes repeat victimisation over longer periods. Overall rates of repeat victimisation were similar across the BME and White populations. The exception was that a lower proportion of adults/households from Black ethnic groups had been repeat victims (all household, personal and BCS crimes) in comparison with the White population (Table 2.1). All the repeat victimisation rates, for all the groups, were similar to 2003/04 levels (Appendix A, Table 2.03). It is not possible to examine differences in repeat victimisation rates of individual crime types due to small sample sizes. 9

18 Table 2.1 Percentage of victims who were victimised more than once in reference year Percentages 2004/05 BCS White Mixed Asian Black Chinese or other All household crime Unweighted base 7, All personal crime Unweighted base 2, All BCS crime Unweighted base 8, Notes: 1. '-' denotes estimates cannot be calculated due to small sample sizes 2. Figures based on sample sizes less than 100 should be treated with caution, as figures based on small sample sizes can have large fluctuations. Rates of victimisation The BCS can also be used to examine rates of victimisation per 10,000 population or households. These also take into account repeat victimisation, i.e. the rates reflect the number of times people have been victims of crimes. (Table 2.2, Appendix Table 2.04). Personal crime When examining personal offences the following were the key patterns. There were few differences between the ethnic groups but the rate of all personal crimes among people from Mixed ethnic backgrounds was higher than among people from Asian backgrounds (1,657 and 784 respectively per 10,000 population). There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of all BCS violence, or in terms of most violence types. The rate of wounding per 10,000 population was higher among people from Mixed ethnic backgrounds (344 per 10,000) compared with White people (139). Rates of wounding were not significantly different for other ethnic groups. Some differences were also observed in the rate of incidents per 10,000 population when examining BCS violence types. People from Chinese and Other ethnic groups had lower rates of domestic violence (15 per 10,000) than White (92 per 10,000) and Black people (182 per 10,000). However, the rates of muggings were higher among Chinese and Other ethnic groups (206 per 10,000) than White people (77 per 10,000). The rates of stranger violence were lower among Black people (96 per 10,000) compared with White people (195 per 10,000). 10

19 Table 2.2 Victimisation rates per 10,000 adults Violence 2004/05 BCS White Mixed Asian Black Chinese or Other Common assault (includes some with minor injuries) Wounding Robbery All BCS violence 567 1, Domestic violence Acquaintance Stranger Mugging (robbery and snatch theft) All personal crime 953 1, ,090 Unweighted base 42, ,884 1,979 1,042 Household crime Analysis of household victimisation showed: Households with an HRP from a Black ethnic group had significantly lower rates of household crime (2,548 incidents per 10,000 households where the HRP was from the Black ethnic group) compared with Mixed (3,937), Asian (3,373) or White (2,988) ethnic groups (Table 2.3, Appendix Table 2.04). Households with an HRP from an Asian ethnic group were more likely to suffer vandalism (a rate of 1,354 per 10,000 households) than those with an HRP from Black (584) and Chinese and Other (797) ethnic groups. The rate of vandalism among households with an HRP from a Black ethnic group was also significantly lower compared with households with a White HRP (1,139). The apparent difference between households with a White HRP and HRPs from Chinese and Other ethnic groups was not statistically significant. In terms of rates of vehicle-related theft, the only statistically significant difference was between households with an HRP from the Asian group compared with one from the White ethnic group. The rate of vehicle-related thefts among households with an HRP from an Asian ethnic group was significantly higher than that among households with a White HRP (1,029 and 810 rate per 10,000 respectively). There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of burglary per 10,000 households between the ethnic groups. 11

20 Table 2.3 Victimisation rates per 10,000 households 2004/05 BCS White Mixed Asian Black Chinese or other Vandalism 1,139 1,352 1, Burglary All vehicle thefts 810 1,289 1,029 1, All household crime 2,988 3,937 3,373 2,548 2,647 Unweighted base 42, ,824 1, Trends in victimisation Overall, the levels of crime in England and Wales have been falling since a peak in the mid- 1990s (Nicholas et al., 2005), and this downward trend has continued in recent years. Trends in the levels of victimisation by ethnic groups should be considered against this general decline in the levels of crime. Trends in victimisation by ethnicity are presented here from 2002/03 onwards as figures for household offences cannot be calculated for the 2001/02 BCS by ethnicity (see Appendix D- Methodological Note) and prior to 2001/02 the BCS had a different ethnic group classification. 10 Trends in levels of victimisation 11 Unsurprisingly, the overall downward trend in levels of crimes between 2003/04 and 2004/05 BCS interviews is generally reflected in the levels of risk of victimisation by ethnic group (Appendix A, Table 2.05). The decrease in the overall risk of victimisation (all BCS crimes) was statistically significant for White (from 26% to 24%), Mixed (from 39% to 29%) and Asian (from 31% to 26%) ethnic groups, between BCS interviews in 2003/04 and 2004/05. The risk of violent crime and overall personal crimes decreased among people from White (violence from 4% to 4%, personal crimes from 7% to 6%), Mixed (violence from 11% to 7%, personal crimes from 16% to 11%) and Asian (violence from 5% to 3%, personal crimes from 9% to 6%) ethnic groups from 2003/04 to 2004/05. While there were reductions in the risk of overall household crimes for all ethnic groups, this was significant only for the White ethnic group (from 20% to 18%). The risk of burglary decreased among households with an HRP from White (from 3% to 3%) and Mixed (from 8% to 4%) ethnic groups, and the risk of vehicle-related thefts among households with HRPs from White (from 9% to 8%) and Asian (from 14% to 10%) ethnic groups between 2003/04 and 2004/05 BCS interviews. Changes in the risk of victimisation between the 2002/03 BCS and the 2004/05 BCS are fairly similar to the above summary (see Appendix A, Table 2.06). 10 See Salisbury and Upson (2004) for BCS 2001/02 figures for personal crimes. 11 Some of the differences are statistically significant although the figures reported here do not differ due to rounding. 12

21 The patterns for prevalence risk, described above, were nearly identical when comparing changes in the incidence rates between 2003/04 and 2004/05 BCS interviews. Unlike prevalence rates, incidence rates take into account multiple victimisation, i.e. the rates reflect the number of times people have been victims of crimes (see Appendix A, able 2.06). Offender ethnicity The BCS also asks respondents, who say that they have been victims of crime, about the characteristics of the offender, including their ethnicity (Figure 2.3). The figures here are related to all offences (figures for offender ethnicity in racially motivated incidents are included in Chapter 3). As expected, given the profile of the general population, in the vast majority of the incidents where the offender was seen at least one of the offenders was White (88% of all BCS crimes). At least one of the offenders was thought to be Black in ten per cent of the incidents, of Asian ethnic group in five per cent of the incidents, and from Chinese or Other ethnic backgrounds in three per cent of the incidents, again reflecting the profile of the general population. However, there were differences in the reported ethnicity of the offenders between victims from the White and BME groups. A smaller proportion of incidents against people from BME groups involved White offenders compared to incidents against White people. Similarly offenders from BME backgrounds were involved in a larger proportion of incidents against people from BME backgrounds, than in incidents against White people. It was not possible to examine the extent to which offenders and victims tend to come from the same BME groups in more detail due to small sample sizes. This is likely to reflect the fact that a large proportion of offenders commit crimes in their local area, and BME populations tend to be concentrated in certain areas, such as big cities (Budd et al., 2005b). Figure 2.3 Offender ethnicity in all BCS crimes, BCS 2004/ Percentage of incidents by offender ethnicity Victim White Victim any BME Victim total White offender/s Black offender/s Asian offender/s Chinese/Other offender/s 13

22 Chapter summary The 2004/05 BCS showed that the only difference in the overall prevalence risk of victimisation (total BCS crimes) between ethnic groups was that people from Mixed ethnic groups were at higher risk of victimisation than White people. Overall, the Mixed ethnic group were generally at higher risk of victimisation, appearing to be the most at risk group. These findings are consistent with previous research (Salisbury and Upson 2004). The multivariate analyses carried out indicated that the differences between Mixed and other ethnic groups reflect differences in the socio-demographic profiles of the groups rather than ethnicity itself. In particular the proportion of young people in the Mixed ethnic group is large in comparison to other ethnic groups, and young people are in particular at higher risk of victimisation (Nicholas et al., 2005). People from Asian and White backgrounds had a lower risk of becoming a victim of a personal crime than people from Mixed and Chinese and Other ethnic backgrounds. In terms of overall violent incidents, people from Mixed ethnic groups were at higher risk of victimisation than people from all other ethnic groups. However, multivariate analyses indicated that ethnicity was not independently associated with risk of victimisation for either personal or all violent incidents. Instead other factors: age and sex; frequency of visiting pubs or bars; living in an area with high levels of perceived anti-social behaviour; and marital status were the strongest predictors of risk of victimisation. Differences were also noted in the risk of victimisation in terms of overall or various household offences (vehicle-related theft, vandalism and burglary). However, as with personal crimes, ethnicity was not independently associated with risk of victimisation, with the exception of burglary. Ethnicity was a significant predictor of risk of burglary based on the multivariate analysis carried out. Other predictors of burglary were age and sex, living in an area with high levels of perceived anti-social behaviour and having no security measures. The strongest predictor of risk of burglary was having no security measures. The rates of victimisation per 10,000 population or households were also examined. In broad terms the results, when BME and White groups were compared, were similar to those found for risk of victimisation. The decrease in the overall risk of victimisation (all BCS crimes) between BCS interviews in 2003/04 and 2004/05 was statistically significant for White, Mixed and Asian ethnic groups. There was no change in the risk of victimisation among Black and Chinese and Other ethnic groups. In the vast majority of the incidents at least one of the offenders was White, although this figure was lower for incidents where the victim was from a BME group compared with incidents where the victim was White. 14

23 3. Racially motivated crimes This chapter focuses on racially motivated crimes with information about the extent and trends of such crimes; the reasons why such crimes were thought to be racially motivated are included. In addition, the circumstances surrounding these incidents are examined. It should be noted that the figures reported here are based on respondents self-perception. Furthermore, as many offences such as burglaries and vehicle-crimes often involve no interaction between the offender and the victim it is not always possible for respondents to make a judgement about whether or not the incident was racially motivated. Levels of racially motivated crimes It was estimated that there were 179,000 racially motivated crimes in England and Wales, based on BCS interviews in 2004/05. This compares with a total of 206,000 incidents reported by the 2003/04 and 2002/03 BCS, representing a marked fall in the number of racially motivated crimes. 12 The number of racially motivated crimes could not be calculated for 2001/02 (see Appendix D for more information). Estimates prior to 2001 are not comparable because only a subset of respondents from certain ethnic groups were asked the relevant questions.,13 Table 3.1 Estimated numbers of racially motivated crimes 2004/05 BCS White Mixed Asian Black Chinese or other BME Total PROPERTY CRIME Vandalism 8,800 4,300 16,700 6,900 2,800 30,700 Burglary 4, , ,800 All vehicle thefts , ,900 VIOLENCE Common assault 47,300 2,000 26,800 5,000 3,800 37,600 Wounding 20, ,500 1,200 1,100 4,300 Robbery 7, ,200 5,200 ALL HOUSEHOLD CRIME 15,000 5,300 22,100 7,900 3,000 38,300 ALL PERSONAL 77,200 3,300 29,000 8,100 8,400 48,800 ALL BCS 92,200 8,600 51,100 16,000 11,400 87,100 Unweighted base - personal crimes 42, ,884 1,979 1,042 6,390 Unweighted base - household crimes 42, ,824 1, , For household crimes the 2004/05 numbers are derived by multiplying offence rates (incidence rates) by the estimated number of households for each of the groups. For violent crimes the 2004/05 numbers are derived by multiplying the incidence rates by the estimated number of adults in each of the groups in England and Wales. 2. All BCS violence includes common assault, wounding, robbery and snatch theft. 12 It is not possible to calculate the statistical significance for change in the number of racially motivated incidents. See Appendix D methodological note for more information. 13 In the 2000 BCS this was asked of respondents in the White, Black, Indian and Pakistani/Bangladeshi categories only, and prior to 1994 BCS the question was not asked of White respondents. 15

24 Risk of becoming a victim of racially motivated crime In terms of risk of becoming a victim of a racially motivated crime, i.e. the percentage of adults or households that had been victims of any BCS racially motivated crime, White people, or households with a White HRP, had a lower risk of becoming victims of racially motivated crimes than people in any of the BME groups, but the risk did not vary between the individual BME groups (i.e. was not statistically significant, Appendix A, Table 3.02). 14 Overall prevalence rates of all individual types of racially motivated crimes were small: around one per cent or less. In terms of total BCS crimes, less than one per cent of the White population had been victims of racially motivated crimes. The risk of racially motivated crimes was two per cent for people from all BME groups. Risk of racially motivated personal offences In summary, for personal offences (i.e. those committed against individuals) the risk of racially motivated (all BCS) personal crimes and violent crimes was again lower for White people (<1%) in comparison with people from Mixed (1%) Asian (1%), Black (1%) and Chinese and Other (1%) ethnic groups. Risk of racially motivated household offences A similar pattern to that described above for personal offences emerged when analysing household crimes. For example, for racially motivated vandalism, as well as overall household crimes, the risk of victimisation was lower for households with a White HRP (<1%) than for households where the HRP was from Mixed (1%), Asian (1%), Black (1%) or Chinese and Other (1%) ethnic groups. As with the risk of victimisation in general, differences in the risk of victimisation between subgroups that make up each of the categories where also examined where possible. There were no differences in the risk of becoming a victim of racially motivated crime between the subgroups: the risk did not differ between Asian Indian, Bangladeshi and Pakistani groups, or between Black-Caribbean or African. The analysis was carried out for the main crime types (vandalism, burglary, vehicle-crime, violence, all personal crimes, all household crimes and all BCS crimes) that had been racially motivated. Proportion of crimes that are racially motivated The proportion of crimes that were thought to have been racially motivated was also assessed. There were clear differences between the White and BME populations (all BME cases grouped together) in terms of the proportion of crimes that were thought to have been racially motivated. This analysis is restricted to comparing all BME groups with the White population due to limitations in sample size (Appendix Table 3.03). The key findings are listed below: Altogether most household and property crimes were not seen as having been racially motivated by either the White or BME groups. Of all household crimes the 14 The rate is calculated treating a household crime as a personal crime. It is the estimated percentage of adults who have been a victim of at least one personal crime or have been a resident in a household that was a victim of at least one household crime. 16

An Overview of Hate Crime in England and Wales Home Office, Office for National Statistics and Ministry of Justice December 2013 Contents Page Executive summary... 6 Introduction... 10 Definition of hate

Clarification of the law on self defence Equality Impact Assessment Introduction This Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) relates to amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO)

British Crime Survey Measuring crime for 25 years Krista Jansson Acknowledgements Thanks are due to Katharine Thorpe, Jacqueline Hoare, Maya Kara, Gavin Jaunky and Ian Brunton-Smith for their help in the

Policing and the criminal justice system public confidence and perceptions: findings from the 2004/05 British Crime Survey Jonathan Allen Suzanne Edmonds Alison Patterson Dominic Smith Edited by Jonathan

Home Office Statistical Bulletin The Research, Development and Statistics Directorate exists to improve policy making, decision taking and practice in support of the Home Office purpose and aims, to provide

Minimum sentences for the new offences of threatening with an article with a blade or point or offensive weapon in public or on school premises Equality Impact Assessment Introduction This Equality Impact

Domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking: findings from the 2004/05 British Crime Survey Andrea Finney Home Office Online Report 12/06 The views expressed in this report are those of the authors,

Home Office StatisticalBulletin The Research, Development and Statistics Directorate exists to improve policy making, decision taking and practice in support of the Home Office purpose and aims, to provide

Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2006 A Ministry of Justice Publication under Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 October 2007 Criminal Justice Act 1991 Section 95 (1) The Secretary

The Research, Development and Statistics Directorate exists to improve policy making, decision taking and practice in support of the Home Office purpose and aims, to provide the public and Parliament with

Supplemen Home Office Statistical Bulletin Statistical Bulletins are prepared by staff in Home Office Statistics under the National Statistics Code of Practice and can be downloaded from both the UK Statistics

Home Office Statistical Bulletin The Research, Development and Statistics Directorate exists to improve policy making, decision taking and practice in support of the Home Office purpose and aims, to provide

Home Office Statistical Bulletin The Research, Development and Statistics Directorate exists to improve policy making, decision taking and practice in support of the Home Office purpose and aims, to provide

Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2006/7 A Ministry of Justice Publication under Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 July 2008 Criminal Justice Act 1991 Section 95 (1) The Secretary

Racist incidents: progress since the Lawrence Inquiry Maria Docking Rachel Tuffin Home Office Online Report 42/05 The views expressed in this report are those of the authors, not necessarily those of the

What Does the 2011 Census Tell Us About Inter-ethnic Relationships? Coverage: England and Wales Date: 03 July 2014 Geographical Area: Local Authority and County Theme: Population Theme: People and Places

The Research, Development and Statistics Directorate exists to improve policy making, decision taking and practice in support of the Home Office purpose and aims, to provide the public and Parliament with

Poverty among ethnic groups how and why does it differ? Peter Kenway and Guy Palmer, New Policy Institute www.jrf.org.uk Contents Introduction and summary 3 1 Poverty rates by ethnic group 9 1 In low income

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report August 2012 ncj 238536 National Crime Victimization Survey Victimizations Not Reported to the Police, 2006-2010

2. Incidence, prevalence and duration of breastfeeding Key Findings Mothers in the UK are breastfeeding their babies for longer with one in three mothers still breastfeeding at six months in 2010 compared

Review of Ethnicity in the East of England Review of Ethnicity in the East of England Prepared by Cambridgeshire County Council Research Group Emma Dunn September 2005 Email: research.group@cambridgeshire.gov.uk

Health and Safety Executive Violence at work, 2014/15 Findings from the Crime Survey for England and Wales and from RIDDOR 1 Contents Summary 2 Violence at work 3 Definition of violence at work in Crime

Characteristics of domestic abuse and predictors of repeat victimisation in North Lincolnshire Prepared for Safer Neighbourhoods North Lincolnshire Iain Brennan, Centre for Criminology and Criminal Justice,

Statistics about Bourne, 32UG012 Bourne Parish is within LAD or UA People Statistics Resident Population and Age The resident population of Bourne as measured in the 2001 Census, was 11,933 of which 48.3

NOO data factsheet Child Weight July 2012 Key points Obesity among 2 10 year olds rose from 10.1% in 1995 to 14.6% in 2010 according to Health Survey for England (HSE) figures. There are growing indications

Statistics about Sleaford, 32UE057 Sleaford Parish is within LAD or UA People Statistics Resident Population and Age The resident population of Sleaford as measured in the 2001 Census, was 14,494 of which

UNODC-UNECE Manual on Victimization Surveys: Content The structure 10 chapters and 4 Appendices Extensive use of examples / boxes from victimization surveys carried out in different countries, including

Crime in America Presented by: James P. Lynch, Ph.D. Director Bureau of Justice Statistics May 24, 2012 Three Questions What is the role of a national statistical office in the collection of crime statistics?

Part 2 Processes of Crime Analysis coming into the police agency, but those dispatched to or initiated by officers. Because of the vast information contained in a CAD system, information is often purged

Home Office Statistical Bulletin The Research, Development and Statistics Directorate exists to improve policy making, decision taking and practice in support of the Home Office purpose and aims, to provide

Focus on Ethnicity and Identity paints a picture of the ethnic groups in the UK today. It includes information on their characteristics, lifestyles and experiences, placing particular emphasis on comparing

Race, Religion and Equalities: A report on the 2009 10 Citizenship Survey Crown copyright, 2011 Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. You may re-use this information (not including

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report National Crime Victimization Survey January 25, NCJ 26836 Violent Victimization of College Students, By

The ageing of the ethnic minority populations of England and Wales: findings from the 2011 census A briefing paper from the Centre for Policy on Ageing June 2013 The Centre for Policy on Ageing was set

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2008 Statistical Tables National Crime Victimization Survey Table of contents

November 2011 Civil Legal Problems: Young People, Social Exclusion and Crime By Professor Pascoe Pleasence Supported by: A report for: The Baring Foundation The John Ellerman Foundation Published by: The

Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2008/09 A Ministry of Justice publication under Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 June 2010 Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System

Chapter 7 Impacts of Child Poverty: Youth Safety Key Findings: The literature finds an association between childhood poverty and behaviour. Children in low-income families are more likely to be excluded

Home Office Statistical Bulletin Statistical Bulletins are prepared by staff in Home Office Statistics under the National Statistics Code of Practice and can be downloaded from both the UK Statistics Authority

Public confidence in the Criminal Justice System: findings from the British Crime Survey 2002/03 to 2007/08 Dominic Smith Ministry of Justice Research Series 16/10 July 2010 Public confidence in the Criminal

Fraud Offences Sentencing Data Analysis and Research Bulletin June 213 This bulletin provides statistics on the outcomes and demographics of offenders 1 sentenced for offences covered by the draft guideline

2000/7 9 May 2000 Crime in New Zealand: a statistical profile Executive summary Trends in offences After steadily rising for much of the period from the 1970s to the early 1990s, the number of criminal

1. General dh Recruitment Hereford & Worcester embraces diversity and will seek to promote the benefits of diversity in all of our business activities. We will seek to develop a business culture that reflects

The attainment of Muslim pupils in England and Scotland and parental aspirations Muslim Pupils Educational Experiences in England and Scotland: The project Literature and statistical review Family case

> architecture and race A study of black and minority ethnic students in the profession Research outcomes: 6 CONTENTS List of Tables 4 Abbreviations 5 01 INTRODUCTION AND METHODS 1.1 The quantitative research

Profile of Black and Minority ethnic groups in the UK David Owen, University of Warwick Ethnic composition of the population in 2001 The 2001 Census of Population provides the most up-to-date and comprehensive

, Men and Women and the Criminal Justice System Appraisal of published Statistics PARITY Briefing Paper September 213 Foreword Are men and women treated equally by the Criminal Justice System in England

Race Equality in the workplace Racial discrimination in recruitment Government (DWP) research shows racial discrimination in recruitment (October 2009) Three fictional applicants were created, all well

8 Interpreting Crime Data and Statistics Rachel Boba T he goal of this chapter is to provide knowledge of how to appropriately apply and interpret statistics relevant to crime analysis. This chapter includes

Crime and cohesive communities Dr Elaine Wedlock Home Office Online Report 19/06 The views expressed in this report are those of the authors, not necessarily those of the Home Office (nor do they reflect

No. 235 Farm Victimisation in Australia Carlos Carcach This paper summarises the main results from a national farm crime survey commissioned by the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC). The survey

January 2004 Alcohol and Re-offending Who Cares? This briefing paper focuses on the high level of alcohol misuse and dependence within the prison population. In recent years a great deal of time and money

Youth Unemployment and Ethnicity TUC report 1 Introduction We hear the shocking statistics every day: over one million 16-24 year olds are unemployed. Youth unemployment is at a record high, and although

Issue no. 2 July 1996 NATIONAL CRIME STATISTICS 1995 The South Australian Perspective by Joy Wundersitz Paul Thomas Jayne Marshall This Information Bulletin describes the findings, as they pertain to South

Getting it right for Victims and Witnesses Equality Impact Assessment Getting it right for Victims and Witnesses Equality impact assessment Scope of this equality impact assessment (EIA) 1. This equality